SB 

/2T3 

W* 


IRLF 


SB    70    EflS 


HORTICULTURAL 
NOMENCLATURE     * 


F,  A.  WAUGH 


NOTES 


ON 


Horticultural  Nomenclature 

Some  Suggestions  for   the  Nurseryman,  Fruit  Grower,  Gardener,  Seed 
Grower,  Plant  Breeder  and  Student  of  Kor&v.«lti?re 

By 
F.  A.  Waugh 


Published  by 
American  Gardening 

Rhinelander  Building,  Rose  and  Duane  Sts. 

New  York 

J898 


A 


J 


NOTE. 

The  first  five  of  these  essays  were  pub- 
lished in  Country  Gentlemen,  Vol.  63,  pages 
448,  468,  488,  508  and  528,  and  are  repro- 
duced here  through  the  kindness  of  the 
Editor.  The  sixth  essay  is  now  printed  for 
the  first  time.  F.  A.  W. 

University  of  Vermont, 
Sept.  1,  1898. 


476433 


NOTES  ON  HORTICULTURAL  NOMENCLATURE. 


i 

GENERAL    PROBLEMS. 

The  first  requisite  to  the  study  of  any  science  or  art  is  a  satisfactory 
nomenclature.*  This  is  a  widely  recognized  principle.  The  students 
of  such  sciences  as  physics,  astronomy  and  botany  have  spent  a  great 
deal  of  time  and  effort  in  selecting  and  defining  most  minutely  the 
terms  necessary  to  their  descriptions  and  discussions.  And  whether 
it  be  cause  or  effect,  the  present  undeniable  crudity  of  horticultural 
nomenclature  is  evidence  that  pomology,  vegetable  culture  and  flori- 
culture still  fall  measurably  short  of  being  sciences.  Science  is  said 
to  be  classified  knowledge  ;  but  before  we  can  classify  our  knowledge 
of  horticultural  varieties,  we  must  have  those  varieties  unequivocally 
named  and  accurately  described.  We  are  fond  of  saying  that  horti- 
culture is  coining  to  be  a  science  ;  but  it  certainly  falls  far  short,  in 
this  respect,  of  what  it  ought  to  be. 

A  reasonable  nomenclature  assigns  to  each  entity,  be  it  object, 
process,  species  or  variety,  a  separate  and  distinctive  name.  In  hor- 
ticulture, our  attention  is  fixed  chiefly  on  varieties,  and  varieties  are 
hard  to  define  ;  but  each  one,  as  we  know  and  describe  it,  ought  to 
have  one  name  and  one  only.  In  other  words,  one  variety  must  not 
pass  under  several  names  ;  nor  must  one  name  stand  for  two  or  more 
distinct  varieties.  It  would  be  easy  to  mention  examples  of  both  mis' 
takes.  The  well-known  apple,  Ortley,  for  instance,  has  nearly  two 
dozen  synonymous  names,  such  as  White  Bellflower,  Ohio  Favorite, 
Detroit,  Greasy  Pippin,  Inman,  Yellow  Pippin,  Jersey  Greening, 
Warren  Pippin,  etc.  Those  older  varieties  of  pears  introduced  from 

*By  the  way,  this  word  is  pronounced  wo-men-c/a-ture,  not  no-w^n-cla-ture,  as 
one  often  hears  it. 


France  are  especially  rich  in  synonyms.  There  is  the  common  Easter 
Beurre,  which  has  over  a  dozen,  such  as  Doyenne  d'Hiver,  Beurre  de 
Paques,  Pater  Noster,  Beurre  de  la  Pentecote,  Bergamotte  de  la  Pen- 
tecote, etc.  Sometimes  these  synonymous  names  become  so  widely 
distributed  and  so  well  known  as  to  supplant  the  proper  names.  We 
may  cite  among  apples  Jewett  Red,  which  is  generally  known  through- 
out New  England  as  Nodhead.  One  of  the  most  striking  cases  is  that 
of  the  Abundance  plum,  which  was  first  called  Botan.  The  latter 
name,  though  entirely  correct,  has  been  superseded  by  the  former. 
The  variety  is,  however,  still  known  as  Botan  in  many  sections.  But 
other  varieties  also  pass  under  the  name  of  Botan,  and  this  illustrates 
the  second  class  of  difficulties  which  arise  in  nomenclature.  There 
are  also  two  distinct  varieties  passing  under  the  name  Satsuma — per- 
haps more.  The  name  Greasy  Pippin  is  applied  to  the  Ortley  apple, 
and  to  Grimes'  Golden,  and  sometimes  to  other  varieties. 

It  is  evident  that  no  headway  can  be  made  in  horticultural  dis- 
cussions in  books,  journals,  bulletins,  or  in  horticultural  societies, 
unless  the  same  name  always  refers  to  the  same  variety  and  unless 
the  same  variety  is  always  referred  to  by  the  same  name.  In  order  to 
secure  this  end,  some  one  authority  must  be  followed,  or  some  ade- 
quate rules  of  nomenclature  must  be  agreed  upon.  The  time  was, 
not  so  many  years  ago,  when  the  former  plan  worked  fairly  well  in 
this  country.  The  two  Downings  during  their  lifetime  stood  high 
enough  above  the  general  run  of  pomologists  and  were  so  widely  recog- 
nized as  the  authorities  on  varieties  of  fruits,  that  their  word  could  be 
the  law.  In  conjunction  with  the  work  of  the  Downings,  the  Ameri- 
can Pomological  Society  also  exercised  a  considerable  authority  in  the 
matter  of  nomenclature. 

But  times  have  changed  rapidly  since  then.  There  is  such  a  wide 
territory  to  be  covered,  and  there  have  been  so  many  thousands  of 
varieties  introduced,  that  no  man  or  set  of  men  can  pretend  to  an  au- 
thoritative knowledge  of  the  whole  field.  Even  the  American  Pomo- 
logical Society  cannot  cover  the  ground,  and  could  not  even  if  it  were 


as  active  as  it  was  in  earlier  days.  And  for  similar  reasons  our 
Division  of  Pomology  in  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture 
cannot  exercise  an  arbitrary  final  authority.  Thus  our  only  reliance 
now  must  be  placed  in  such  a  thorough,  yet  simple,  system  of  naming 
as  shall  make  it  easy  to  determine  by  rule  what  the  correct  name  of  a 
variety  is. 

In  this  respect,  the  horticulturists  have  much  to  learn  from  the 
botanists.  The  latter  name  the  species  of  plants  which  they  study 
according  to  rules  upon  which  they  are  fairly  well  agreed,  and  though 
there  are  some  inconsistencies,  occasionally  ridiculous  ones,  still  on 
the  whole  the  science  of  botany  is  immeasurably  in  advance  of  horti- 
culture in  this  respect.  We  have,  indeed,  a  code  of  rules  for  naming 
fruits,  and  another  for  naming  vegetables  ;  and  though  these  rules  are 
not  above  criticism,  they  are  much  in  advance  of  the  general  practice 
in  nomenclature.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  not  one  fruit-grower  in  a  hun- 
dred has  ever  seen  these  rules.  It  is  also  perfectly  obvious  that  the 
rules  are  openly  and  flagrantly  disregarded  by  a  great  many  nursery- 
men, seedsmen  and  writers  on  horticultural  topics.  A  separate  chap- 
ter will  be  devoted  to  a  presentation  and  discussion  of  these  rules. 


II 

POMOLOGICAL  RULES. 


In  the  foregoing  chapter  I  tried  to  point  out  the  pressing  need  of 
an  agreed  system  of  nomenclature  for  fruits  and  vegetables.  I  also 
alluded  there  to  the  rules  now  in  vogue,  and  ventured  the  guess  that 
not  many  persons  knew  of  their  existence.  I  am  sure  that  many 
otherwise  well-informed  horticulturists  do  not  know  what  these  rules 
are  ;  and  we  all  see  too  plainly  that  many  of  us  who  ought  to  be 
most  careful  to  maintain  them  are  very  careless  in  observing  them. 
It  may  not  be  considered  wholly  gratuitous,  therefore,  if  I  transcribe 
here  the  rules  adopted  by  the  American  Pomological  Society  to 
govern  the  nomenclature  of  fruits.  These  are  practically  all  the  rules 
we  have  ;  they  are  fairly  complete  and  satisfactory  ;  and,  at  any  rate, 
matters  would  be  greatly  improved  if  they  could  be  generally  en- 
forced : 

1.  The  originator  or  introducer  (in  the  order  named)  has 
the  prior  right  to  bestow  a  name  upon  a  new  or  unnamed  fruit. 

2.  The  society  reserves  the  right,  in  case  of  long,  inappro- 
priate, or  otherwise  objectionable  names,  to  shorten,  modify, 
or  wholly  change  the  same  when  they  shall  occur  in  its  discus- 
sions or  reports,  and  also  to  recommend  such  names  for  general 
adoption. 

3.  The  name  of  a  fruit  should  preferably  express,  as  far 
as  practicable  by    a  single   word,  the  characteristics   of  the 
variety,  the  name  of  the  originator,  or  the  place  of  its  origin. 
Under  no   ordinary  circumstances  should   more  than  a  single 
word  be  employed. 

4.  Should  the  question  of  priority  arise  between  different 
names  for  the  same  variety  of  fruit,  other  circumstances  being 
equal,  the  name  first  publicly  bestowed   will  be  given  prefer- 
ence. 

These  rules  possess  the  soul  of  wit,  and  are  therefore  fairly  clear. 
Still  their  various  applications  need  to  be  carefully  considered,  and 
some  discussion  of  them  may  prove  profitable. 


With  respect  to  Rule  1,  it  may  be  said  that  this  matter  has  usually 
adjusted  itself.  If  the  originator  does  not  introduce  his  own  variety, 
he  commonly  disposes  of  his  right  to  name  it  when  he  turns  his  new 
apple  or  strawberry  over  to  another  man  to  introduce.  The  privilege 
of  naming  a  new  variety — or  at  least  the  division  of  that  privilege 
between  the  originator  and  the  introducer — is  commonly  considered 
a  property  right,  and  is  bought  and  sold  like  any  other  property, 
without  reference  to  rules  of  nomenclature.  What  ought  to  be  chiefly 
noted  in  the  application  of  this  rule  is  that  both  originator  and  intro- 
ducer may  lose  their  right  to  the  bestowal  of  a  name,  if  that  right  is 
not  promptly  and  properly  occupied.  If  a  variety  should  be  distribu- 
ted without  a  name,  such  a  one  might  be  named  by  any  pomologist 
who  should  have  occasion  to  publish  or  advertise  the  variety  ;  and  a 
name  so  given  would  hold  against  any  subsequent  action  of  originator 
or  introducer,  if  it  conformed  to  the  other  rules  of  nomenclature.  Or 
if  the  originator  or  introducer  should  give  a  name  contrary  to  any  of 
the  other  rules,  such  an  incorrect  name  could  be  revised  or  changed 
either  by  the  American  Pomological  Society,  as  provided  in  Rule  2, 
or  by  any  author  making  formal  publication  writh  reference  to  the 
variety  in  question. 

Rule  2  appears  to  be  rather  indefinite,  but  it  is  a  wise  one,  and 
one  for  which  a  large  and  unfortunate  necessity  exists.  Those  who 
have  had  any  experience  in  working  over  fruit  lists,  either  for 
nursery  catalogues,  bulletin  publication,  or  for  any  other  purpose, 
have  been  deeply  impressed  with  the  long,  awkward,  bungling,  inapt, 
meaningless  names  which  in  some  way  have  to  be  managed.  It  is  quite 
customary  tor  nurserymen,  in  their  catalogues,  to  revise  such  names 
to  suit  themselves,  and  as  different  nurserymen  hit  upon  different 
adaptations,  this  introduces  a  good  deal  of  confusion.  The  right  to 
make  such  revisions  cannot  be  questioned ;  but  for  the  sake  of 
uniformity,  we  must  endeavor  to  follow  some  authority  or  some 
agreed  system  in  the  changes  which  we  make. 


Rule  3  is  suggestive  rather  than  mandatory.  It,  too,  is  a  very 
wholesome  rule,  but  finds  honor  in  the  breach  perhaps  oftener  than 
in  the  observance.  We  are,  however,  improving  visibly  in  this 
matter,  and  it  may  not  be  too  much  to  expect  that  the  future  will 
show  a  still  more  rapid  advancement.  It  may  be  proper  here  to 
call  attention  to  an  interpretation  of  this  rule  which  has  frequent 
application  in  the  names  of  fruits.  Such  names  as  Scott's  Winter, 
Crawford's  Early,  Peck's  Pleasant,  etc.,  are  now  usually  revised  to 
read  Scott  Winter,  Crawford  Early,  Peck  Pleasant.  Such  names  as 
Murphy's  Surprise,  Beaty's  Choice  and  Holt's  Seedling  need  still 
further  revision  The  first  one  might  be  called  Murphy  or  Surprise, 
or  an  entirely  new  name  might  reasonably  be  given.  The  second 
should  be  changed  to  Beaty  or  be  renamed,  and  the  last  one  become 
simply  Holt.  The  publications  of  the  American  Pomological  Society 
and  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  have  set  a  good  example  in  this 
direction  which  it  is  not  difficult  to  follow. 

Rule  4  is  introduced  in  a  sort  of  hesitating  tone,  as  though  a  con- 
flict of  names  on  the  ground  of  priority  were  a  very  unusual  or  deli- 
cate matter,  yet  this  is  likely  to  be  the  rule  of  most  importance  in  the 
whole  code,  and  it  is  one  wrhich  will  certainly  be  appealed  to  with 
greater  frequency  and  fuller  confidence  as  we  go  forward  in  a  more 
scientific  pursuit  of  pomological  knowledge.  We  know  that  an  old 
variety  which  has  not  two  or  three  names  is  an  exception,  but  in  decid- 
ing among  a  number  of  names  for  a  given  fruit,  choice  will  rest  oftener 
upon  priority  than  upon  any  other  ground.  In  fact  priority  is  almost 
an  absolute  test  in  such  cases.  Any  other  consideration  must  be  of 
the  most  obvious  sort  to  justify  the  substitution  of  one  name  for 
another;  but  the  first  correct  name  correctly  given  to  a  variety  must 
stand. 

The  rule  of  priority  as  here  set  forth,  however,  covers  only  half 
the  ground.  It  applies  to  any  case  in  which  one  variety  has  two 
names.  But  it  is  not  at  all  uncommon  to  find  one  name  doing  duty 
for  two  varieties.  It  is  evident  that  in  such  cases  the  name  belongs 


to  that  variety  upon  which  it  was  first  publicly  bestowed,  and  the 
second  variety  must  find  another  name.  This  is  one  of  those  good 
rules  which  work  both  ways. 

As  this  rule  is  of  the  utmost  importance,  and  as  it  is  likely  to  be 
appealed  to  much  oftener  in  the  future,  we  must  agree  as  to  what  con- 
stitutes priority.  The  rules  here  under  consideration  say  that  "the 
name  first  publicly  bestowed  will  be  given  preference."  It  is  appar- 
ently intended  that  the  use  of  a  name  in  the  publications  of  the 
American  Pomological  Society,  or  its  formal  recognition  in  the  public 
meetings  of  the  society,  shall  constitute  a  "public  bestowal."  There 
can  be  no  objection  whatever  to  the  first  clause  of  this  statement ; 
but  it  will  scarcely  be  fair  in  the  future  to  date  the  bestowal  of  a  name 
from  the  time  of  its  use  in  the  society's  meetings  unless  the  name  be 
at  the  same  time  published  in  the  society's  reports.  In  other  words, 
priority  of  name  must  rest  hereafter  on  priority  of  publication.  This 
is  the  rule  now  universally  followed  by  the  botanists,  zoologists  and 
other  scientists.  Their  practice  in  this  regard  is  in  most  ways  a  val- 
uable model  for  pomologists. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  principal  difficulty  in  the  application  of 
this  rule  to  pomology  will  be  in  reaching  an  understanding  of  what 
shall  constitute  a  "publication."  The  American  Pomological  Soci- 
ety's rules  are  extremely  modest.  They  are  made  for  the  guidance 
of  the  society,  and  there  is  no  attempt  to  force  them  on  any  one  else. 
The  horticultural  public,  however,  must  accept  the  publications  of 
the  American  Pomological  Society,  and  the  names  used  in  their  re- 
ports may  certainly  be  considered  as  published.  But  the  American 
Pomological  Society  has  no  monopoly  of  publication,  nor  can  the  so- 
ciety refuse  to  accept  names  properly  published  from  other  sources. 
A  new  variety  may  be  exhibited  at  a  meeting  of  a  state  horticultural 
society,  a  name  may  be  given,  and  the  name  published  with  the 
description  in  the  state  society's  reports.  Such  a  publication  would 
have  to  be  accepted,  and  the  name  would  date  from  the  publication 
of  the  report  which  contained  it.  There  is  every  reason,  too,  why  the 


10 

bulletins  from  the  experiment  stations  should  be  sufficiently  author- 
itative to  fix  the  priority  of  names  properly  published  in  them. 
Unfortunately  such  bulletins  have  been  very  exceptional  up  to  the 
present  time,  but  we  may  fairly  expect  some  improvement  in  the 
future.  One  shortcoming  with  station  bulletins,  considered  from  the 
standpoint  of  authoritative  nomenclature,  is  that  they  seldom  publish 
full  descriptions,  and  still  less  frequently  do  they  publish  original 
descriptions.  This  is  largely  unavoidable,  since  the  nurseryman  who 
introduces  a  variety  almost  invariably  gives  the  original  description 
with  his  announcement  and  advertisement.  But  there  is  evidently 
an  opportunity  for  experiment  station  horticulturists,  by  studying 
carefully  the  descriptions  and  the  nomenclature  of  the  varieties 
which  they  discuss  in  their  bulletins,  to  make  such  publications  the 
means  of  establishing  correct  names  of  fruits.  We  can  all  remember 
how  certain  names  have  become  established  through  Prof.  Bailey's 
bulletins  on  Japanese  plums,  and  through  Prof.  Watts'  apple  bul- 
letins. 

I  have  just  referred  to  the  fact  that  original  descriptions  usually 
appear  in  the  nurseryman's  catalogue,  and  with  such  descriptions  the 
original  announcement  of  names.  Just  here  comes  in  the  greatest 
practical  difficulty.  Shall  such  descriptions  of  new  varieties  be  con- 
sidered to  be  "publications"  in  the  technical  sense,  and  to  fix  the 
priority  of  names  ?  It  is  evident  that  they  ought  so  to  be  consid- 
ered. It  would  simplify  questions  of  priority  in  names,  and  would 
make  reference  to  original  descriptions  easier.  The  only  difficulty  in 
the  way  is  the  looseness  and  carelessness  which  often  characterize 
such  publications.  Many  nurserymen  get  out  elaborate  catalogues, 
with  the  dates  carefully  given,  with  new  varieties  most  painstakingly 
described,  and  with  names  carefully  selected.  Other  nurserymen  an- 
nounce a  new  variety  with  a  very  bombastic  and  ridiculous  name  by 
sending  out  an  utterly  unreliable  description  printed  on  a  loose  sheet 
of  paper  and  slipped  in  between  the  leaves  of  an  old  catalogue  pub- 
lished several  years  previously.  It  is  obvious  that  the  latter  announce- 


11 

ment  does  not  bring  a  variety  properly  before  the  horticultural  world, 
and  that  it  can  not  constitute  a  "  publication."  The  difficulty  arises 
in  drawing  the  line.  Such  a  line  cannot  be  prescribed  here  in  terms 
which  will  prove  universally  satisfactory;  but  it  will  be  safe  to  say 
that  any  variety  name  may  be  considered  published  when  it  is  given 
in  connection  with  a  true  description  in  a  catalogue  which  bears  the 
date  of  its  publication,  and  which  is  generally  distributed  among 
nurserymen,  fruit  growers  and  horticulturists.  At  all  events  we  must 
as  fast  as  possible,  reach  an  agreement  as  to  what  shall  constitute  a 
"publication,"  and  we  must  take  all  possible  pains  to  use  those 
names  which  are  correct  according  to  precedent  and  authority.  And 
especially  ought  nurserymen  to  recognize  the  great  responsibility 
which  they  are  under  in  the  original  publication  of  names  and  des- 
criptions; and  they  ought  to  take  such  pains  in  editing,  publishing 
and  distributing  their  catalogues  as  to  make  it  possible  to  rest  the 
names  of  varieties  upon  their  publications.  This  need  not  add  ap- 
preciably to  the  nurseryman's  expense  of  issuing  a  catalogue,  and 
the  improvement  would  be  to  his  own  direct  advantage. 


III 
THE  NAMES  OF  GARDEN  VEGETABLES. 


In  the  last  chapter  I  gave  a  transcript  of  the  rules  adopted  by 
the  American  Pomological  Society  for  the  naming  of  fruits,  and  added 
some  discussion  of  their  application  and  present  bearings.  Among 
kitchen-garden  vegetables  we  have  still  greater  confusion  of  names 
than  among  orchard  fruits,  and  there  are  more  bombastic  and  un- 
pleasant names  given.  Still  the  varieties  of  vegetables  change  so 
often  that  irregularities  of  nomenclature  seem  to  be  less  dangerous 
and  troublesome;  and  at  the  same  time  it  becomes  much  harder  to 
enforce  a  rational  system  of  names  and  descriptions.  But  we  can 
hardly  hope  to  arrive  at  the  dignity  of  scientific  work  in  this  brand i 
of  horticulture  either,  until  we  have  some  definite  system  of  nomen- 
clature. Such  a  system  would  also  have  its  obvious  value  to  garden- 
ers and  to  seed-buyers  of  every  class.  The  problem  is  well  worth 
considering. 

The  only  satisfactory  rules  yet  proposed  for  naming  kitchen  - 
garden  vegetables  are  those  adopted  by  the  committee  on  nomencla- 
ture in  the  Association  of  American  Agricultural  Colleges  and  Expe- 
riment Stations  in  1889.  It  is  a  sad  record  to  make,  but  it  is  doubt- 
less true,  that  these  rules  have  not  been  very  generally  followed  by 
experiment  station  officers  since  their  adoption,  or  at  least  they  have 
not  made  a  very  great  impression  of  improvement  on  the  horticultu- 
ral world  in  the  matter  of  naming  vegetables.  But  that  is  not  the 
fault  of  the  rules.  I  will  copy  them  here  for  the  benefit  of  readers 
who  may  not  have  access  to  them  elsewhere  : 

RULES  FOE  NAMING  VEGETABLES. 

1.  The  name  of  a  variety  shall  consist  of  a  single  word,  or 
at  most,  of  two  words.  A  phrase,  descriptive  or  otherwise,  is 
never  allowable,  as  Pride  of  Italy,  King  of  Mammoths,  Earliest 
of  All. 


13 

2.  The  name  should  not  be  superlative  or  bombastic.     In 
particular,  such  epithets  as  New,  Large,  Giant,  Fine,  Selected, 
Improved,  and  the  like,  should  be  omitted.     If  the  grower  or 
dealer  has  a  superior  stock  of  a  variety,  the  fact  should  be 
stated  in  the  description  immediately  after  the  name,  rather 
than  as  a  part  of  the  name  itself,  as  Trophy,  selected  stock. 

3.  If  a  grower  has  secured  a  new  select  strain  of  a  well- 
known  variety,  it  shall  be  legitimate  for  him  to  use  his  own 
name  in  connection  with  the  established  name  of  the  variety, 
as  Smith's  Winningstadt,  Jones1  Cardinal. 

4.  When  personal  names  are  given  to    varieties,    titles 
should  be  omitted,  as  Major,  General,  etc. 

5.  The  term  "hybrid"  should  not  be  used  except  in  those 
rare  instances  in  which  the  variety  is  known  to  be  of  hybrid 
origin. 

6.  The  originator  has  the  prior  right  to  name  a  variety, 
but  the  oldest  name  which  conforms  to  these  rules  should  be 
adopted. 

7.  This  committee  reserves  the  right,  in  its  own  publica- 
tions, to  revise  objectionable  names  in  conformity  with  these 
rules. 

These  rules  are  simple  enough,  and  their  usefulness  is  unquestion- 
able. The  only  comment  which  it  would  be  worth  while  to  introduce 
here  relates  to  rules  6  and  7.  These  involve  again  the  matter  of  pri- 
ority, which  was  discussed  more  fully  in  connection  with  the  Ameri- 
can Pomological  Society's  rules  for  naming  fruits.  It  is  plain  that,  in 
those  frequent  cases  where  one  name  has  been  applied  to  two  varieties, 
or  twro  names  to  one  variety,  decision  must  be  made  upon  the  ground 
of  priority.  And  priority  may  rest  upon  publication.  And  publica- 
tion will  be  still  more  difficult  to  determine  than  in  the  case  of  fruits. 
The  names  and  descriptions  of  most  kitchen-garden  vegetables  appear 
originally  in  seedsmen's  catalogues.  It  is  hard  to  think  that  all  the 
catalogues  published  every  year,  some  of  them  very  slovenly  affairs, 
are  to  be  considered  a  part  of  the  permanent  literature  of  horticulture, 
and  that  such  an  important  matter  as  our  whole  system  of  nomencla- 


ture  of  garden  vegetables  must  rest  upon  such  a  foundation  ;  but  it  is 
still  harder  to  see  how  we  are  to  avoid  such  a  strait.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  best  horticultural  and  botanical  libraries  in  this  country 
have  been  preserving  the  seed  catalogues  in  recent  years,  and  already 
we  find  sundry  evidences  of  their  use  in  some  of  the  most  important 
and  dignified  of  our  horticultural  publications.  Perhaps  some  of  the 
seedsmen  will  find  it  an  incentive  to  the  improvement  of  their  publi- 
cations when  they  learn  that  their  catalogues  are  being  preserved  in 
the  libraries  along  with  Linnaeus'  Species  Plantarum  and  Louden' s 
Encyclopedia  of  Agriculture. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  of  late  as  to  the  value  of  variety 
testing  in  the  experiment  stations,  and  the  tendency  has  been  to  dis- 
parage the  worth  of  comparative  tests  of  long  lists  of  garden  varieties. 
Without  breaking  into  that  debate,  it  may  be  pertinent  to  suggest 
that,  if  such  tests  could  result  in  accurate  descriptions  of  varieties, 
with  careful  and  exhaustive  study  of  the  proprieties  of  nomenclature 
in  each  case,  a  real  and  permanent  value  would  be  added  to  them. 
Some  work  of  this  sort  has  been  done  already — enough  to  point  the 
way.  Hardly  more  than  that  has  been  accomplished  in  the  nomen- 
clature of  fruits.  But  these  beginnings  are  very  interesting,  and, 
considered  as  suggestions  for  future  work,  they  are  invaluable.  I 
will  call  attention  to  some  of  them  in  the  next  chapter. 


15 


IV 
EXAMPLES  OF  SCIENTIFIC  METHODS, 


In  the  preceding  chapters  I  have  called  attention  to  the  obvious 
need  of  better  methods  in  horticultural  nomenclature.  We  are  all 
hoping  for  the  time  when  the  study  of  horticulture  shall  be  put  upon 
the  same  plane  with  other  natural  sciences,  and  we  believe  that  when 
that  time  comes  we  shall  make  much  more  rapid  and  permanent  pro- 
gress. To  a  very  considerable  extent,  this  proper  habilitation  of  hor- 
ticulture waits  for  the  establishment  of  an  accurate  and  unequivocal 
nomenclature.  We  have  at  hand  a  method  which,  if  generally  prac- 
ticed, would  secure  a  rational  system  of  horticultural  names  ;  and  it 
was  in  the  hope  of  promoting,  to  some  small  degree,  the  use  of  this 
method,  that  I  have,  in  preceding  articles,  transcribed  the  best  known 
nomenclatural  rules  and  have  added  a  few  comments.  But  the  best 
illustration  of  what  is  needed  lies  in  those  few  publications  which 
have  followed  carefully  the  methods  set  forth.  I  will  refer  to  two. 

Prof.  Bailey's  second  report  on  Japanese  plums  (Cornell  Bulletin 
106,  1896,)  gives  a  first-rate  example  of  the  proper  method  consistently 
employed  in  pomology.  We  find,  for  instance,  one  variety  introduced 
in  this  way  : 

DOUGLAS  (R.  H.  Price,  Bui.  32,  Tex.  Exp.  Sta.,  p.  488,  1894). 
'  Munson,  of  Bailey  (Cornell  Bui.  62,  p.  27. ) 

Hytcutkayo,  of  Whitaker. 

Hattankio,  of  some. 

This  is  followed  by  a  partial  description,  a  fuller  description 
having  already  been  given  by  the  same  author  in  the  same  series  of 
bulletins.  The  reference  in  parenthesis  in  the  first  line  gives  credit 
to  Prof.  Price,  who  first  used  the  name  Douglas  for  this  variety.  It 
also  shows  where  and  when  the  name  was  published.  The  following 
three  lines  give  the  synonymy  of  the  variety.  The  second  line  records 


16 

the  fact  that  Prof.  Bailey  called  the  same  variety  Munson  in  his  Bul- 
letin 62,  p.  27.  In  this  case,  the  name  Munson  was  given  to  the 
variety  earlier  than  the  name  Douglas  ;  but  Prof.  Price  pointed  out 
that  the  same  name  (Munson)  had  been  given  earlier  to  a  very  differ- 
ent variety.  This  case  illustrates  very  nicely  the  working  of  the  rule 
of  priority.  The  last  two  lines  in  the  reference  quoted  show  that, 
according  to  the  author's  judgment,  the  varieties  called  Hytankayo  by 
Mr.  Whitaker  and  Hattankio  by  some  others,  are  identical  with 
Douglas. 

In  the  same  bulletin  the  author  refers  to  other  varieties  in  the 
following  terms  : 

BURBANK  (Van  Deman,  Kept.  Dept.  Agric.  1891,  p.  392). 
CHASE  (R.  G.  Chase  Co.,  Catalogue,  1893). 

Hattonkin,  of  some. 

Yellow  Japan,  of  some. 

GEORGESON  (Bailey,  Cornell  Bulletin  62,  p.  23). 
Hattonkin  No.  1. 
Hattonkin,  of  some. 
Hattankio,  of  some. 

NORMAND  (J.  L.  Normand,  Catalogue,  1891). 
Normand  Yellow. 
Normand' s  Japan. 

These  examples  illustrate  sufficiently  the  proper  method  of  cita- 
tion. It  is  a  method  much  to  be  commended.  It  is  obviously  de- 
sirable in  any  but  the  most  "popular"  experiment  station  bulletins; 
it  is  adapted  to  the  publication  of  descriptions  and  names  in  the  re- 
ports of  horticultural  societies,  and  it  is  not  too  complicated  to  be 
used  by  nurserymen  in  their  more  elaborate  catalogues.  I  have  already 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  pomological  nomenclature  is,  to  a 
very  great  degree,  dependent  on  the  nurserymen's  catalogues  ;  and  it 
would  seem  no  more  than  reasonable  to  hope  that  the  nurserymen, 
considering  the  great  interest  they  have  in  the  advancement  of  pom- 
ology, would  take  as  much  pains  as  possible  to  make  their  publica- 
tions at  once  accurate  and  useful. 


17 

As  an  example  of  the  best  methods  of  nomenclature  carefully 
applied  to  the  discussion  of  garden  vegetables,  I  will  take  the  liberty 
to  refer  to  a  "  Revision  of  the  Genus  Capsicum,"  by  Mr.  H.  C-  Irish, 
just  published  in  the  ninth  annual  report  of  the  Missouri  Botanical 
Garden.  The  title  of  the  paper  would  give  one  the  idea  that  Mr. 
Irish  was  presenting  only  a  botanical  monograph  of  the  genus  in 
hand;  but  besides  studying  fully  the  botanical  species  of  Capsicum, 
he  has  made  a  very  critical  study  of  the  garden  varieties  of  peppers. 
These  are  carefully  classified,  and  an  analytical  key  arranged  for  the 
determination  of  unknown  varieties  after  the  manner  of  the  manu- 
als of  botany.  But  it  is  not  the  key  so  much  as  the  method  of  des- 
cription and  of  citation  to  wrhich  I  would  turn  attention.  Let  us  take 
the  nomenclatural  citations  for  the  variety  Bell : 

BELL,  Burr.  Field  &  Gard.  Veg.  617,  1863. 
Red  Prince,  Everitt,  Cat.  1887. 

Bell  or  Bull  Nose,  Hend.  Gard.  for  Profit,  264,  1887  (3ded). 
N//vr<  Spanish,  Bailey,  Bui.  Mich.  Agr.  Col.  31,  p.  41,   1887. 
Bull  Ntoe,  Landreth  Cat.  1894. 
Piment  gros  carre  doux,  Piment  cloche,  French. 

Here  we  are  given  in  connection  with  a  full  and  very  useful  de- 
scription of  this  variety  (omitted  from  this  review),  the  opinion  of 
Mr.  Irish,  derived  from  much  close  study,  that  Bell  is  the  name  prop- 
erly belonging  to  it,  and  also  the  names  which,  according  to  the 
author's  judgment,  have  been  used  from  time  to  time  for  the  same 
variety.  Thus  we  are  able  to  know  at  a  glance,  in  so  far  as  we  have 
confidence  in  the  author's  judgment,  the  correct  name  of  the  variety, 
all  the  synonymous  names,  and  where  and  when  they  have  been 
used.  Perhaps  one  or  two  more  examples  of  Mr.  Irish's  citations 
will  not  leave  this  point  over-illustrated.  I  select  the  following  : 

SWEET  SPANISH,  Burr,  Field  &  Gard.  Veg.  625,  1863. 
Quince- Pepper,  Burr,  1.  c.  623. 
Large  Sweet  Spanish,  Landreth,  Cat.,  1881. 
Spanish  Mammoth,  Vihnorin-And.    Veg.    Gard.   153,    1885 

(Eng.  ed.) 

New  Sweet  Spanish,  Henderson,  Cat.,  1887. 
Piment  doux  d'Espagne,  French. 
Rother  milder  spanischer  Pfeffer,  German. 


18 

The  position  of  the  name  Quince-Pepper  as  a  synonym  under 
Sweet  Spanish,  indicates  Mr.  Irish's  opinion  that  Burr,  in  his  Field 
and  Garden  Vegetables,  published  in  1863,  described  the  same  vari- 
ety under  both  names.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  why  Mr.  Irish 
gave  preference  to  the  name  Sweet  Spanish.  On  the  face  of  the  evi- 
dence here  presented  the  other  name  ought  to  have  been  retained. 

The  variety  Emperor  is  cited  as  follows  : 

EMPEROR,  Giant  Emperor,  Thornburn,  Cat.  1883. 
Bailey,  Bui.  Mich.  Agr.  Col.  31,  p.  40,  1887. 

This  would  indicate  that  the  variety  was  introduced  by  Thorn- 
burn  in  1883,  under  the  name  of  Giant  Emperor,  and  that  no  other 
name  for  the  variety  had  been  published,  but  that  the  author  took 
the  liberty  to  revise  the  name  in  accordance  with  rules  2  and  7  of  the 
Association  of  American  Agricultural  Colleges  and  Experiment  Sta- 
tions (see  page  13).  The  propriety  of  such  a  revision  cannot  be  dis- 
puted. 

In  some  cases  Mr.  Irish  found  varieties  described  in  both  horti- 
cultural and  botanical  literature.  A  part  of  one  of  these  citations  is 
here  given  to  show  how  the  method  may  be  applied  in  such  cases  : 

BRAZILIAN  UPRIGHT,  New  Brazilian  Sweet  Upright, Thornburn, Cat., 

1892. 
Piper  rotundum  majus  surrectum.     Greg,   de  Reg.  in  Clus. 

Cur.  Post.  96-97.  f.  1.  1611. 
Piper  Indicum  siliquis  surrectis  rotundis,  diff.   I.  maximum 

obtusum.     Bauhin,  Pinax  103,  1623,  etc.,  etc. 

In  this  case  again  the  name  New  Brazilian  Sweet  Upright  was 
revised  to  read  Brazilian  Upright.  The  botanical  references  show 
the  author's  opinion,  as  the  result  of  his  study,  that  the  variety  Bra- 
zilian Upright  is  the  same  as  the  one  described  by  the  various  botan- 
ists cited. 

This  method  of  referring  the  name  of  every  horticultural  variety 
to  its  proper  authority,  and  of  giving  under  it  all  the  synonyms  prop- 
erly arranged  and  authenticated,  is,  of  course,  too  elaborate  for  the 


19 

ordinary  seed  catalogue;  but  it  is  the  only  one  which  can  be  fully 
satisfactory  from  a  scientific  point  of  view,  and  I  suppose  no  one  at 
this  late  day  has  such  an  ill-feeling  toward  scientific  horticulture  as 
not  to  hope  that  we  may  have  some  scientific  publications  on  such 
subjects.  Indeed  every  rational.man  is  glad  to  see  scientific  methods 
applied  to  our  agricultural  and  horticultural  problems,  for  by  such 
means  chiefly  are  we  assured  of  steady  and  permanent  progress. 


20 

V 
PROPERTY  RIGHTS  IN  NAMES. 


In  a  former  chapter  (page  7)  reference  was  made  to  the  custom  in 
vogue  between  originators  and  introducers  of  horticultural  varieties 
as  to  the  privilege  of  bestowing  names.  Sometimes  the  introducer 
buys  a  ready  named  variety,  advertises  it  and  distributes  it  under  the 
name  given  by  the  originator.  Oftener,  however,  the  introducer 
prefers  to  name  the  variety  himself,  and  so  far  as  the  rights  of  the 
case  are  concerned,  it  would  seem  proper  for  him  to  hold  this  privilege. 
But  in  order  that  the  right  of  bestowing  a  name  may  thus  be  a  part 
of  the  property  equity  in  the  variety,  the  originator  should  be  careful 
not  to  confuse  horticultural  literature  by  the  publication  of  a  name 
and  description  for  a  variety  which  he  plans  to  sell  out  to  some  one 
for  introduction.  A  convenient  way  is  to  carry  such  unintroduced 
varieties  under  their  nursery  numbers,  Johnson's  247,  A-46,  MC-72, 
etc.,  as  is  done  with  many  of  them  in  Mr.  Burbank's  admirable  New 
Creations.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  originator  has  definitely 
published  a  name  with  his  description,  it  ought  to  be  understood 
that  the  christening  is  over.  The  privilege  of  naming  the  variety  is 
then  no  longer  for  sale.  It  has  been  occupied  once  for  all  by  the 
originator.  The  variety  with  its  name,  for  better  or  for  worse, 
belongs  to  the  horticultural  public,  and  any  agreement  between  origi- 
nator and  introducer  as  regards  its  name  is  no  longer  of  any  effect. 
This  mistake  is  very  common,  and  therefore  the  p~oint  needs  to  be 
emphasized.  The  nurseryman  who  introduces  a  new  variety  has  my 
full  sympathy,  and  I  know  how  important  a  catchy  name  is  in 
making  sales.  The  nurseryman  feels  that  when  he  invests  his  money 
in  a  high-priced  novelty  his  business  interests  are  superior  to  any 
trivial  pomological  rules.  But  the  public  must  be  protected  as  well 
as  the  nurseryman';  and  if  the  latter  buys  a  novelty  ready-named,  it 
ought  to  be  clearly  understood  that  the  naming  privilege  is  not  a 


21 

factor  in  the  consideration.  The  name  really  belongs  to  the  public  ; 
the  originator  cannot  sell  it,  and  the  nurseryman  ought  not  to  pay 
for  it.  As  a  matter  of  recent  pomological  history  in  this  country,  it 
may  be  well  to  add  that  introducers  who  have  endeavored  to  rename 
varieties  have  several  times  found  their  labor  lost,  even  in  our  present 
loose  enforcement  of  nomenclature  rules. 

Another  point  closely  related  to  this  is  the  protection  of  varieties 
and  of  variety  names.  Several  schemes  have  been  devised,  among 
which  the  copyright  trademark  deserves  special  attention.  This  has 
been  tried  by  several  responsible  nursery  firms,  and  doubtless  has 
furnished  some  practical  protection.  Most  men  do  not  want  to  have 
the  bother  and  expense  of  a  legal  prosecution,  and  would  rather  not 
run  the  risk  of  propagating  a  trademarked  novelty.  But  some  nur- 
serymen have  been  bold  enough  to  disregard  the  claims  of  copyright 
or  trademark  owners,  and,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn  after 
considerable  inquiry,  no  court  has  ever  given  a  decision  against  such 
infringements.  A  well-known  nurseryman,  who  has  tried  this 
method,  has  lately  said  in  print :  "I  would  not  advise  Mr.  Blank  to 
spend  much  money  in  trying  to  protect  the  name  of  any  new  fruit 
until  a  law  is  made  for  this  special  purpose."  The  editor  of  the 
Country  Gentleman,  at  my  request,  has  kindly  submitted  this  question 
to  an  eminent  legal  authority,  who  says  ;  "Copyright  only  applies  to 
printing,  engraving,  lithographing  and  similar  methods  of  reproduc- 
tion. However,  under  the  United  States  Statutes,  a  trade-mark  may 
be  registered.  In  any  event,  a  copyright  or  trade-mark  cannot  prevent 
the  sale  of  the  fruit  or  the  trees  under  another  name." 

The  case  seems  to  stand  about  like  this  :  A  copyright  pure  and 
simple  cannot  be  secured.  A  trade-mark  may  be  registered.  This 
trade-mark  may  be  any  sort  of  a  device,  including  the  name  chosen 
for  the  variety,  as  "Hobson,"  "Manila,"  "Maine."  This  trade-mark, 
including  the  name,  may  be  exclusively  used  in  advertisements, 
descriptions,  etc.  It  may  also  be  stamped  upon  a  seal  and  attached 
to  the  plants,  and  thus  furnish  a  guaranty  to  the  buyer  that  they  are 


22 

the  genuine  stock.  Further  than  this  the  introducer  may  require 
each  purchaser  to  sign  an  agreement  not  to  propagate  or  sell  any 
plants,  roots  or  scions  of  the  variety  ;  lout  this  agreement  has  no  con- 
nection with  the  trade-mark  and  is  quite  as  binding  without  the 
latter.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  variety  advertised  under  a 
copyright  or  a  trade-mark  may  be  propagated  and  sold  under  another 
name  without  liability.  Further  than  that,  it  seems  highly  probable 
that  such  a  trade-marked  variety  could  be  sold  under  the  trade-mark 
name,  but  without  the  actual  seal  bearing  the  registered  device,  and 
that  injunction  proceedings  would  not  lie  against  parties  making  such 
sales.  Of  course  a  particular  court  at  a  particular  time  might  hold  a 
contrary  opinion,  but  it  seems  quite  unlikely.  In  conclusion  I  wish 
to  acknowledge  the  kindness  of  Mr.  H.  W.  Collingwood,  who  has  lent 
his  aid  in  looking  this  question  up,  and  who  seems  to  have,  in  gen- 
eral, the  opinion  here  given. 


23 

VI 
HINTS    ON    NAMING. 


I  have  always  felt  sorry  for  Adam,  not  so  much  that  he  missed 
the  advantages  of  a  dress  suit  and  the  protective  tariff  as  to  think 
what  a  hard  time  he  must  have  had  in  naming  all  the  plants  and 
animals  which  the  good  Creator  sent  him.  I  have  seen  a  trained 
botanist  worry  and  fuss  for  a  week  trying  to  find  the  name  for  one 
little  undersized  plant ;  and  when  I  remember  how  my  great-great- 
grand-parent  Adam,  who,  unfortunately,  had  never  been  to  college, 
was  obliged  to  go  through  the  whole  garden  and  the  menagerie  and 
the  museum  and  the  fish  ponds  and  name  every  living  creature  in 
one  day,  why  I  can't  suppress  a  throb  of  sympathy  for  him.  This 
naming  business  is  hard  work  at  the  best,  especially  to  us,  when  other 
people  have  worked  over  the  field  for  a  hundred  years  or  so. 

The  selection  of  a  felicitous  name  for  a  new  variety  seems  to  be  a 
matter  of  peculiar  difficulty.  Only  a  small  minority  of  the  names 
actually  given  are  to  be  regarded  as  happy  and  appropriate.  I  sup- 
pose it  is  not  altogether  for  advertising  purposes  that  some  seedsmen 
adopt  the  method  of  offering  large  prizes  for  names  of  new  vegetables 
or  flowers.  I  have  noticed  with  interest  the  clause  in  the  announce- 
ments of  such  competitions  providing  that  names  which  fail  of  prizes 
shall  nevertheless  become  the  property  of  the  company,  and  may  be 
used  for  other  varieties.  It  shows  that  a  good  name  is  rather  to 
be  chosen  than  riches, — that  is,  has  a  definite  cash  value.  Let  not 
the  man  with  a  new  baby  or  fruit  or  vegetable  enter  lightly  upon  the 
duty  of  providing  a  name  to  last  the  young  individual  all  its  life. 

On  the  other  hand  it  strikes  me  that  many  men  feel  too  much 
the  importance  of  a  name  in  sending  out  a  new  variety.  A  name  is 
merely  a  handle  by  which  we  may  pass  a  fruit  or  a  vegetable  around 
the  horticultural  table.  It  is  only  a  convenience,  a  label,  a  designa- 


24 

tion.  It  is  not  a  description,  still  less  an  advertisement.  When  a 
man  tries  to  make  a  name  legitimate  according  to  rule,  new,  short, 
crisp,  appropriate,  euphonious,  and  then  tries  to  crowd  the  descrip- 
tion and  the  advertisement  into  the  same  word,  he  has  undertaken  a 
hard  job.  He  would  better  put  the  advertisement  in  large  type  at 
the  head  of  the  page,  and  the  description  in  small  type  after  the 
adopted  name.  It  is  nice  to  have  a  name  suggestive  of  some  striking 
quality  in  the  variety  if  that  can  be  done  without  sacrifice,  but  the 
temptation  to  use  the  name  for  advertising  purposes  has  been  yielded 
to  too  often  for  the  good  of  the  horticultural  public.  And  I  believe 
that  those  most  guilty  of  this  abuse  have  made  very  little  by  it.  Let 
us  remember,  then,  that  a  name  is  merely  an  arbitrary  sign  for  a  va- 
riety, and  that  the  only  absolute  requirements  are  that  it  shall  be 
manageable  and  unequivocal. 

The  name  of  the  originator,  discoverer  or  introducer  of  a  plant  is 
always  an  appropriate  name.  I  will  not  even  except  Maxjinowic/. 
Many  of  our  finest  fruits  have  been  named  in  this  way  to  the  perma- 
nent satisfaction  of  everybody.  There  are  the  Hale  peach,  KirftVr 
pear,  Gano  apple,  Barry  grape,  Kelsey  plum,  and  dozens  of  others. 
The  propriety  of  such  names  is  widely  recognized  among  botanists,  as 
we  may  see  by  looking  over  Primus  bessei/i,  Liliuni  henry i,  aud$/>ir<in- 
the.s  romanzoffiana.  Among  vegetables  we  see  such  names  much  more 
seldom.  The  man  who  originates  a  new  tomato  is  not  content  to  call 
it  Jones,  but  names  it  instead  Jones'  Prodigious  Rosy  Red.  The  for- 
mer is  the  better  name,  however.  This  method  of  selecting  names, 
when  properly  followed,  has  a  wide  range  of  usefulness. 

The  name  of  a  place  where  a  variety  originates  is  always  proper 
and  nearly  always  satisfactory.  We  may  cite  Arkansas,  Ontario  and 
Bethel  among  apples;  Vergennes  among  grapes;  Kansas,  raspberry; 
Iowa,  plum;  Kalamazoo,  celery.  A  man  who  is  in  doubt  what  to 
name  a  new  fruit  or  vegetable  should  consider  carefully  the  advisa- 
bility of  calling  it  after  his  own  town  or  county  or  state.  Such  names 
are  to  be  recommended.  They  are  too  seldom  given. 


25 

Other  personal  and  local  names,  while  not  having  the  obvious 
propriety  of  those  already  mentioned,  are  often  quite  neat  and  ac- 
ceptable. There  are  the  Jessie  strawberry,  Lone  star  plum,  Jonathan 
apple,  Green  Mountain  grape,  and  Louise  pear.  When  one  is  hard 
pressed  for  a  name,  a  nearby  mountain  range  or  a  river  or  the  eldest 
daughter's  first  name  may  be  called  into  requisition. 

Names  constructed  from  descriptive  adjectives  have  a  strong  at- 
traction for  most  horticulturists.  Their  appropriateness  cannot  be 
gainsaid;  only  when  one  starts  to  make  a  selection  on  this  line  he 
must  remember  that  he  is  choosing  a  name  and  not  writing  a  de- 
scription. The  name  is  far  the  more  important,  and  the  aptness  of 
the  adjective  must  not  interfere  with  the  necessities  of  nomenclature. 
It  is  in  this  class  of  names  that  abuse  is  most  common,  and  caution 
may  therefore  be  the  more  strenuously  recommended.  The  rules  for 
naming  vegetables  (page  13)  say  that  "the  name  should  not  be  super- 
lative or  bombastic."  Examples  of  good  names  of  this  sort  are  the 
following  ;  Golden  Wax  Bean,  Cosmopolitan  Musk  Melon,  Perfection 
Tomato,  Limbertwig  Apple,  Transparent  Plum.  But  anyone  looking 
over  this  matter  will  find  that  really  good  names  of  this  class  are 
much  more  scarce  than  might  be  expected.  On  the  whole  the  de- 
scriptive adjective  is  not  a  brilliant  success  as  a  name. 

One  word  is  a  great  deal  better  than  two  in  making  up  a  name. 
Two  words  ought  not  to  be  used  unless  there  is  some  very  good  reason 
for  it.  Three  words  are  never  admissible. 

The  use  of  Latin  names  in  horticultural  nomenclature  is  almost 
never  good  taste.  There  is  sometimes  shown  a  tendency  in  this  direc- 
tion, but  fortunately  it  has  not  been  serious  in  this  country. 
Examples  of  this  sort  of  thing  carried  to  excess  may  be  cited  from 
foreign  catalogues.  For  instance,  I  find  Polygonum  orientals  pumilum 
album,  Begonia  semperjlorens  atropurpurea  compacta,  and  Chrysanthe- 
mum rttrinatum  atrococcinevni  fuliis  auveis. 

A  word  needs  to  be  said  by  the  way  of  caution  in  the  matter  of 
naming  hybrids.  It  is  a  common,  and  not  altogether  bad,  practice 


26 

to  construct  the  name  of  a  hybrid  from  pieces  of  the  name  borne  by 
its  parents.  Thus  we  have  Mr.  Williams'  Bursoto  plum,  a  hybrid  of 
Burbank  and  Desoto;  Mr.  Kerr's  Elriv  peach,  a  cross  of  Elberta  and 
Rivers;  and  Mr.  Munson's  Elvicand  grape,  a  hybrid  of  Elvira  with 
Vitis  candicans.  This  method  of  manufacturing  a  name  sometimes 
gives  happy  results,  and  in  such  cases  no  one  can  object.  But  if  car- 
ried to  excess  some  very  abominable  crazy-patchwork  may  be  made. 
A  cross  between  Catwaba  and  Delaware  could  not  agreeably  be  called 
Catware.  Neither  could  a  Cross  of  Hortense  and  Montmorency  ap- 
propriately be  named  Hortmorency.  And  if  one  had  a  combination 
of  four,  five  or  six  parents,  such  as  Mr.  Burbank  has  accomplished  in 
some  of  the  plums  he  has  been  sending  me,  the  results  of  this  method 
would  be  very  absurd.  Even  with  Prunus  triflora,  P.  angustifolia,  P. 
americana  and  P.  cerasifera  combined  the  name  Trigustcanfera  would 
hardly  ring  like  good  coin.  This  method,  like  all  the  others,  is  to  be 
used  with  caution  ;  and  the  chief  caution  is  to  remember  that  a 
name  is  a  handle  for  the  variety,  and  not  a  record  of  its  pedigree  or  a 
proclamation  of  its  virtues.  A  name  should  be  a  public  convenience, 
not  a  word  puzzle. 


Syracuse,  N.  y. 

W.  JAN.  21.  1908 


476433 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 
Fine  schedule:  25  cents  on  first  day  overdue 

50  cents  on  fourth  day  overdue 
One  dollar  on  seventh  day  overdue. 


